Bilingual Edition. The English version follows the Chinese version.
雙語版。華語版本在前，英語版本在後。

---

最近我曾在一場「資訊環境保護主義」（Information Environmentalism）的會議上發表演說，之後便想繼續探索這過去我較少涉略的理論。資訊環境保護主義的概念最早是由詹姆士‧包伊爾（James Boyle）教授所提出，他在1997年發表了一篇名為〈智慧財產的政治學：網路的環境保護主義？〉的文章，其中他論述我們需要一種關於智慧財產的政治學（或說是政治經濟學），並建議其可類比於環境保護運動：

成功的政治運動需要兩大因素，一是一組（可普及化的）分析工具，二是根基於上述工具所揭示之共通利益所組成的聯盟。福利經濟學（welfare economics）和生態學的思考都揭示，因著私有財產聲索的分析架構、過分簡化的「因果」科學、以及不強行將負面外部性（negative externalities）內部化的市場經濟，「環境」這個詞和其概念已黯然消失。同樣地，因著現有智慧財產系統係建基於利害關係人之利益和原創作者之說法、偏重於決定論實務之經濟分析、以及對內部審查（private censorship）的危險不夠敏感之「言論自由」社群，我認為，無論從概念或字面來看，「公眾領域」（public domain）正逐漸消失中。確實，是環境運動創造了環境論述，農人、消費者、獵人、賞鳥人因此察覺自己是環保人士。或許，我們需要創造公眾領域，才能組成為保護公眾領域的聯盟。

我發表演說的會議是由澳洲學者羅伯特‧康寧漢（Robert Cunningham）博士所主辦的。基於包伊爾的想法，他新近出版了一本書，名為《資訊環境保護主義：智慧財產權的治理架構》。康寧漢根據包伊爾有關著作權與環境保護主義的原創性類比，提出了邏輯的下一步，提議智財權公眾領域的倡導者亦可採用環境運動的概念。他探討從環境理論（福利經濟、共享資源、生態、以及公眾選擇理論）衍生的分析架構，如何可被運用在資訊環境領域。此外，他亦探討環境運動的重要概念，如恢復力、多樣性，與模組化等，與智慧財產的相關性。他總結如下：

與自然世界有關的治理經驗可被運用來確保資訊環境的穩健發展。這是一種良性循環。不過，該循環唯有在資訊共享資源（information commons）被保護、發展，並與共有領域（res communis）一致發展的情況下，方能運作成功。而共有領域是屬於所有人的資源，必需用於公眾利益。

當我回顧這些概念，我瞭解到現在是強調上述想法的最佳時機。雖然目前在澳洲和國際間有許多著作權的政策議題值得關注憂心，我相信仍有許多事務是值得回顧慶祝。包伊爾的文章已發表近20年了，許多事物已有改變，也不全是負面的。

因此我以樂觀的態度撰寫此文。我相信資訊環境保護主義的概念不僅是攸關當今的著作權政策，其中心思想——公眾領域和創作人利益一樣需要和值得被保護——同時也逐漸崛起。其崛起的速度或許緩慢，但我想論說已有證據顯示，在澳洲以及國際間的著作權政策已逐漸意識到資訊共享資源，以及維護這空間的重要性。或許意識這個詞不見得是最妥適的用字，因為它意涵自覺性的認同。或許較貼切的說法是，資訊環境保護主義的想法已逐漸滲入著作權的辯論和整體社會之中，其所及範圍已達到可影響法制的程度。

對跨太平洋夥伴協定（Trans-Pacific Partnership，簡稱 TPP）有著諸多疑慮、而且反對延長著作權保護期間的運動在國際間幾乎都失敗，以及在歐洲還真的要考慮網路連結需取得同意的時刻，眾人容易認為過去二十年來的發展每況愈下，全球著作權政策下的使用者權利未受到重視。然而，仍有希望的跡象。

其中最大和最重要的跡象是《促進盲人、視障者及其他印刷品閱讀障礙者接觸已發表著作之馬拉喀什公約》（The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled）的簽訂。這是第一個確認使用者權利的多邊國際著作權協定。此項發展其實極為重要，經由國際對話，甚至訂定協約，智慧財產權的某些限制是必要的。馬拉喀什公約的簽訂歷經了多年的談判協商，而其順利通過的原因可能和無可爭辯的例外情況有關，也就是身障人士的使用需求。重點是，條約通過了。著作權界已認同至少需保留一些空間以共同使用著作的重要性。

同樣地，在 TPP 引發諸多批評之際，相當有意思的一點事實是，相較於過去類似的雙邊或多邊的協約，我們觀察到在 TPP 非常詳細的著作權規定中，其實針對使用者納入了較佳的例外和限制條文。根據美國貿易代表署（USTR）的說法，TPP 包含了「透過合法使用著作權的例外和限制規定，進行批評、評論、新聞報導、教學、學術、及研究，以促進著作權體系的平衡，係為義務」。TPP 所使用的文字在解讀上較為彈性和開放。不過，無庸置疑地，TPP 也相對提高了締約國的權利（與動機），可加入相關均衡規定於國內法來實施 TPP。這雖非完美，但也有所進步。

同時，我們也看到有越來越多的經驗實證以支持類似的決策，以及資訊共享資源所帶來的好處。過去十年來，國際間進行了數項研究，針對公眾領域的價值和著作權物使用的重要性，進行量化或是進一步分析和解釋。這些研究包括：

• 英國政府報告 —《著作權與公共領域的價值》（Copyright and the Value of the Public Domain）
• 魯夫斯‧普洛克（Rufus Pollock）—《公共領域的價值》（the Value of the Public Domain）
• 《公眾領域以及科學與技術資料及資訊之角色》（The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain）
• 保羅‧烏利爾（Paul Uhlir）—《關於政府公眾領域資訊之發展與促進的政策綱要》（Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Governmental Public Domain Information）

近期的國際比較研究顯示，彈性的著作權例外情況對整體經濟是有益的。「里斯本智庫和創新經濟學會」（Lisbon Council and Innovation Economics）去年出版了《2015年智慧財產暨經濟成長指數：衡量著作權例外與限制對成長、就業，與繁榮之衝擊》（The 2015 Intellectual Property and Economic Growth Index: Measuring the Impact of Exceptions and Limitations in Copyright on Growth, Jobs and Prosperity）。這份報告分析了「經濟合作暨發展組織」（OECD）會員國著作權的限制與例外規定，及其經濟成長。結果發現採用彈性著作權例外規定的國家在整體經濟、資訊科技、服務、以及與傳統媒體產業的成長率較高。此外，它們的整體薪資所得，以及通訊和科技產業從業者的薪資也較高。該報告亦指出較彈性的著作權系統帶來的其他正面成果，例如對教育、獨立研究、言論自由、使用者生產內容（user-generated content），以及文字與資料探勘等的提昇。最重要的是，這份報告提出了以下結論：

政策制訂者通常認知，著作權例外情況具有正面的外部性也與創新相關，這跟強力智慧財產保護所驅動的經濟成長，互有利害關係。然而，證據顯示在強力智慧財產框架內的寬鬆與彈性的例外規定，可能是兼顧兩者的最佳方式。

類似的結論其實也見於美利堅大學（American University）一項仍在進行中研究的初期結果。這項研究檢視一國的著作權例外規定會如何影響其經濟成果。在研究初期階段，研究人員比較各國家各類產業的企業經驗，但專注於合理使用形式（fair use style）著作權的例外情形在該國有無規定。其研究數據包含 91 國 5,564 家公司在過去 30 年來的 166,920 觀察結果。當中包括七個具有合理使用例外規定的國家——美國、菲律賓、新加坡、以色列、台灣、馬來西亞，與南韓。研究發現採用合理使用形式的例外規定的國家，其企業通常會出現正面成果，而且這個結果並不受到產業別的影響，而所謂的產業別指的是使用者產業（如依賴著作權例外規定的產業）和權利人產業（如依賴著作權保護的產業）之區別。這顯示「網際網路公司和內容供應商皆受惠於合理使用的體系」。

甚至連世界智慧財產權組織（World Intellectual Property Organization，簡稱 WIPO）也對公眾領域越來越有興趣。WIPO 已委託進行一項關於著作權與公眾領域的概括研究（Scoping Study on Copyright and the Public Domain）。此研究發現，這裡暫且引用珍妮‧金思堡（Jane Ginsburg）的說法，「公眾領域真是了不得」，她並提到：

公眾領域以及其需要被保存的議題，已是針對智慧財產以及其逐漸延伸的廣泛批評者的徽章。公眾領域主要被認為是瀕臨的物種，面對著圈地以及商品化的過程……然而，對於此智慧財產中未受保護部份的研究及立法，目前的論述已超越只將公眾領域視為內在價值，僅堅持其原始素材可用於新作、創新、與發展的講法。而是試圖建構新的體系，以保護並提倡一個豐富可親近的公眾領域。

為了進一步承認與保護公眾領域，此項研究建議「採取著作法中的規範性方法，並且設立具體條件，來有效建立可親近、可享用、可永存的公眾領域資源」。令人興奮的是，世界智慧財產權組織已有項發展議題（且早於前項研究），似乎已開始施行這些建議。其中所採納的 45 項原則包括以下：

「16. 考慮保有公眾領域…並針對豐富與易近的公眾領域之蘊意與優點予以深度分析。」
以及
「20. 推動會員國中的規範性設立活動…以支持一個強健的公眾領域。」

近幾年來，我的國家澳洲在資訊共享資源方面，已有多項前景看好的發展。首先，「澳洲法律評議委員會」（Australian Law Review Commission，簡稱 ALRC）公布了一份前所未有的《著作權暨數位經濟》（Copyright and the Digital Economy）報告。該報告建議澳洲採用合理使用規定，以及其他變革，以提高著作權物的近用性。儘管澳洲政府目前尚未做出任何正式回應，不過已看到該報告的政策影響；「生產力委員會」（Productivity Commission）對智慧財產議題的探究就是例子。澳洲的生產力委員會是個看重整體、推動實證導向決策、並先天上質疑壟斷的組織。生產力委員會被要求對澳洲的智慧財產體制進行檢視，並建議進行有助於「改善澳洲社會整體福祉」的變革措施，這件事情已是好的開始。生產力委員會在這件工作上，已明確列出應檢視 ALRC 的建議，且在其文件上直接提到著作的合理使用。此外，該委員會也探討推動「知識擴散」（diffusion of knowledge）的重要性，以及在創新獎勵和「提供此等獎勵給群體中其他人」之間，取得平衡的必要。

針對生產力委員會所發表的文件，若要指出有哪點是令人失望的話，我想應該是他們錯失了重新定義澳洲智慧財產宗旨的機會。該文件多所提及智慧財產獎勵創意的重要性，並指出唯有促進新智慧財產的生產的體系才是有效的智財體系。但這並非智財體系的最終目標。我們極力鼓勵新創作品，並非是為了著作權人的直接利益，而是為了這些作品在流傳使用時，所能貢獻給社會的價值。雖說此概念在著作權議題上不太常被提出，但其意義卻是不言自明。當然這是智慧財產體系何以存在的原因；其目的不在於創造作品，而在於創造可供我們使用的作品。柏海克（Birnhack）曾說：「公眾領域不僅不是（或不應是）未受預期的副產品，或是著作權作品的『墳場』，而就是其目標。」這是古典的資訊環境保護主義——將我們對著作權爭論的焦點，重新回到整體社會的利益，而非個人的收租利益。試想這對著作權政策的意涵，你便能想見其所注入的潛在翻轉力量。上述想法提供了我們對著作權設限的正當理由。亦即著作權利本質是受限的，著作權法的限制與例外情形，留下空間讓我們使用作品。因此，杜索李爾（Dusollier）指出，公共政策制訂者應「堅持視公眾領域的內在價值為新創作、創新，與發展的原物料，並應試圖去建立制度來保護和推動豐富可親近的公眾領域。」因此，不應僅限於質問著作權是否鼓勵更多作品的生產，而是著作權是否擴大提供了公眾可使用的作品。

雖說生產力委員會可能錯失了這些機會，但其檢視行動似乎是個好的起點。他們認同「一個有效的智財體系亦有助於創新和想法的散佈」，也對強化權利的相關措施表達疑慮，因為這些措施有時是在尚未「對經濟和分配效果詳加瞭解」之前便逕行執行。我非常期待早日看到生產力委員會的報告草稿。

令人興奮的是，該委員會所面對的政治環境似乎也有利於導向使用者為中心的改革。澳洲新任總理過去在推動通訊政策上饒富經驗，他宣稱就任後第一年的主要目標就是創新性的成長，且已將著作權政策業務轉至傳播暨藝術主管機關的範疇，職責範圍包括科技業以及美術、圖書、典藏、以博物館（Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums，簡稱 GLAM），以及藝文人士本身。上述規劃將促成著作權的首次改革，其焦點將專注在擴大和支持使用者的權利。無論其發起人是否知道，也就是資訊共享資源。澳洲去年下半年公布的《2016年著作權修訂法案（障礙人士接近權與其他措施）》草案，其中包括下列幾點：

• 擴大和簡化澳洲學校、圖書館、障礙人士產業的著作權例外規定；
• 針對使用者中介團體提供新的保護措施；
• 允諾將從未發行過的素材整批釋出至公眾領域——在澳洲原本要到2026年才會有新素材歸到公眾領域，但這批完成於久遠之前但從未發行過的素材將是例外。

因此，請容許我感到如此樂觀。無論他們知不知道，我認為澳洲的政策制訂者終於開始看到資訊共享資源的重要性，且將資訊環境保護主義的原則納入其決策中。我想上述原則對於澳洲著作權體系的持續發展與整體社會而言是十分重要的。我認為這些原則一直都很重要，只是它們被忽略了一段時日，希望現在已開始有所轉變。

---

Reasons for Optimism:
How the information commons is (or should be) inherent in copyright, and how it is (or isn't) being recognised in policy today.

Jessica Coates

I recently spoke at an Information Environmentalism conference, which encouraged me to find out more about this theory, which I previously knew little about. Information Environmentalism is a concept first proposed by Prof James Boyle, in his 1997 article 'A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism For the Net?' , in which he argued that we need a politics, or perhaps a political economy, of intellectual property, and suggested the environmental movement as an analogy:

a successful political movement needed both a set of (popularisable) analytical tools and coalition built around the more general interests those tools revealed. Welfare economics and the idea of ecology showed that "the environment" literally disappeared as a concept in the analytical structure of private property claims, simplistic "cause and effect" science, and markets that do not force the internalisation of negative externalities. Similarly, I claimed the "public domain" is disappearing, both conceptually and literally, in an IP system built around the interests of the current stakeholders and the notion of the original author, around an over-deterministic practice of economic analysis and around a "free speech" community that is under-sensitized to the dangers of private censorship. In one very real sense, the environmental movement invented the environment so that farmers, consumers, hunters and birdwatchers could all discover themselves as environmentalists. Perhaps we need to invent the public domain in order to call into being the coalition that might protect it[1]

The conference I spoke at was organised by Dr Robert Cunningham, an Australian academic who has recently published his own book that builds on Boyle's ideas - Information Environmentalism: a Governance Framework for Intellectual Property Rights.[2] Cunningham takes Boyle's original analogy between copyright and environmentalism and takes it to the next logical level by proposing that proponents of the public domain in intellectual property draw on the concepts built by the environment movement. He looks at how analytical frameworks derived from environmental theory (welfare economics, the commons, ecology, and public choice theory) apply to to the information environment. He also looks at how concepts central to the environment movement, such as resilience, diversity and modularity, can be relevant to intellectual property. He concludes that:

governance lessons relating to the natural world can be used to secure the health of the information environment. It is a virtuous cycle. However, this cycle only functions successfully if the information commons is protected, nurtured and developed in line with res communis – a resource that belongs to everyone must be used for the public benefit.[3]

In reflecting on these concepts, I realised that now is a perfect time for such ideas to be resurfacing. Although there are many things to be concerned about in copyright policy both in Australia and internationally at the moment, I believe that upon reflection there are also things to celebrate. Many things have changed in the nearly 20 years since Boyle's original article, and not all of them are bad.

So I write with a message of optimism. Not only do I believe that information environmentalism is a relevant concept in copyright policy today, I think it is a concept whose central tenet - that the public domain needs and deserves protection as much as the interests of creators - is on the rise. This rise may be slow, but I would argue that there is evidence of increasing awareness of the importance of maintaining space for an information commons in both Australian and international copyright policy. Or perhaps awareness is the wrong term, as it implies a conscious endorsement. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the ideas underlying information environmentalism have very gradually permeated the copyright debates and society as a whole to the point where they are now influencing our legal regimes.

With all the concerns surround the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)[4]; the battle against copyright term extension all but lost internationally technological protection measures and licences regularly overriding copyright exceptions; and Europe seriously considering requiring permission to link[5], it is easy to think that things have only gotten worse over the last two decades in recognising the rights of users in global copyright policy. However, there are signs of hope.

The biggest and most important is the signing of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities (the Marrakesh Treaty)[6]. This is the first multilateral copyright treaty to focus on the recognition of user rights. It can not be overstated how important this development is, the emergence of an international dialogue - and even agreement - around the importance of providing at least some limitations on intellectual property rights. The treaty took years to negotiate, compromises were made, and it probably only got through because it relates to the one area in which the arguments for exceptions are pretty much indisputable ie equal access by persons with a disability. But the point is that it got through. The copyright world has acknowledged the importance of retaining at least some space for common use of material.

Similarly, while the TPP has rightly garnered a lot of criticism, one small but interesting fact is that its very detailed copyright provisions actually include better language supporting the adoption of exceptions and limitations for users than any of its predecessors, whether bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral. To quote the USTR, the TPP contains "an obligation to promote balance in copyright systems through exceptions and limitations to copyright for legitimate purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."[7]. The actual language in the treaty is flexible and open to interpretation, but there is no question that it strengthens signatory countries' rights (and motivations) to include balancing provisions in their domestic implementation. It isn't perfect, but it's progress.

At the same time, we are seeing more and more empirical evidence emerge to support these kinds of decisions and the benefits that an information commons can provide. Over the last decade, a number of international studies have been conducted which seek to quantify, or at least better analyse and explain, the value of the public domain and the importance of allowing use of copyright material. These include:

• UK Government's report Copyright and the Value of the Public Domain;[8]
• Rufus Pollock's the Value of the Public Domain;[9]
• The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain; [10]and
• Paul Uhlir's Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Governmental Public Domain Information.[11]

Recent international comparative studies show that the existence of a flexible copyright exception is beneficial to the overall economy. Last year the Lisbon Council and Innovation Economics published The 2015 Intellectual Property and Economic Growth Index: Measuring the Impact of Exceptions and Limitations in Copyright on Growth, Jobs and Prosperity[12]. The report considers the limitations and exceptions to copyright in eight OECD countries alongside their economic growth and finds that countries that employ flexible exceptions in copyright have higher rates of growth for their overall economy and their information technology, service and traditional media sectors. They also have higher wages overall and in the communications and technology sectors[13]. The report also notes other positive outcomes from more flexible copyright systems, such as the promotion of education, independent research, free speech, user-generated content, and text and data mining. Most importantly, the report makes the following conclusion:

Policymakers often perceive the positive externalities and innovations associated with exceptions to copyright as a trade off with the economic growth driven by strong intellectual property protection. Instead, the evidence suggests that broad and flexible exceptions to copyright embedded within a strong intellectual property framework may be the best way to achieve both simultaneously.[14]

Similar conclusions can be seen in the early results of an ongoing study by American University, which examines how a country's copyright exceptions affect its economic outcomes.[15] In its preliminary stages, the study compares the experiences of firms, categorized by industry, in countries with and without "fair use style" copyright exceptions. It uses a dataset with 166,920 observations over 30 years from 5,564 firms in 91 countries, including the seven countries in the world with fair use – the U.S., the Philippines, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Korea. It has found that adoption of fair use style exceptions is associated with positive outcomes for these firms, and that this result doesn't change between user sectors (ie dependent on copyright exceptions) and rightsholder sectors (ie dependent on copyright protection) showing that "both internet firms and content providers can benefit in fair use systems."[16]

Even the World Intellectual Property Authority (WIPO) is showing an increasing interest in the public domain. It has commissioned a Scoping Study on Copyright and the Public Domain which finds that quotes Jane Ginsburg as stating "the public domain is all the rage"[17] and goes on to note that:

the topic of the public domain, and of its necessary preservation, has become the emblem of a wider critique against intellectual property and what this critique perceives as its increasing extension. The public domain is mainly considered as an endangered species, subject to an enclosure and commodification process… but the growing body of scholarship and legislative attention dedicated to the unprotected part of intellectual property has now overcome the mere denunciation to insist on the intrinsic value of the public domain as raw material for new creation, innovation and development and to try to construct a regime that could protect and promote a rich and accessible public domain.[18]

In order to better recognise and protect the public domain, the study recommends "the adoption of normative rules in copyright laws and the setting up of material conditions to effectively enable access to, enjoyment and preservation of public domain resources."[19] Excitingly, WIPO's Development Agenda (which predates the study) seems to be taking a head start in applying these recommendations, with its 45 adopted principles including:

"16. Consider the preservation of the public domain ….deepen the analysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain"
and
"20. To promote norm-setting activities in their Member States… that support a robust public domain.[20]"

In my home country of Australia, we've had several promising developments in favour of the information commons over the last few years. First there was the Australia Law Review Committee's (ALRC's) groundbreaking Copyright and the Digital Economy report, which recommended the adoption of fair use in Australia, along with a draft of other changes aimed at increasing access to copyright materials.[21] While the government is yet to provide any formal response to this report, its influence on the policy debate in Australia can be seen in the ongoing Intellectual Property Inquiry by our Productivity Commission (PC).[22] Even the fact that we are asking the Productivity Commission - an organisation that focuses on the big picture, promotes evidence-based policy making and is inherently skeptical of monopolies - to look at our IP system and recommend changes that would, and I quote, "improve the overall wellbeing of Australian society" is a good start.[23] The PC was explicitly tasked in its terms of reference with looking at the ALRC recommendations, and asks directly about fair use in its issues paper[24]. It also discusses the importance of promoting the "diffusion of knowledge" and the need to balance incentives to innovate with "the cost of providing these incentives to the rest of the community."[25]

If there is one thing I am disappointed about in the PC issues paper it is that I think they missed an opportunity to redefine the purpose of IP in Australia. The paper focuses a fair amount on the importance of IP as a means to incentivise creativity, that an IP system is effective if it promotes the creation of new IP. [26]But this is not an end in and of itself. We strive to encourage new works not for the benefits they provide directly to the copyright owner, but because of the value those works contribute to society through their dissemination and use. Although this idea doesn't get a lot of airtime in copyright debates, it is in one sense blindingly obvious. Of course that's why IP systems exist - not to create works, but to create works that we can use. To quote Birnhack, "the public domain is not merely – or rather should not be – an unintended by product, or 'graveyard' of copyrighted works, but its very goal".[27] This is classic information environmentalism - to refocus our copyright debates not on the rents gained by private individuals, but on the benefits gained by society as a whole. Think about the implications of this for copyright policy, and you can see what a potent twist it adds. It provides the justification for the limits we place on copyright, its finite nature, and the room we leave for the use of materials through limitations and exceptions in the Act. Therefore, as Dusollier notes, the aim of public policy makers should be to "insist on the intrinsic value of the public domain as raw material for new creation, innovation and development and to try to construct a regime that could protect and promote a rich and accessible public domain."[28] The question to be asked is not just does copyright encourage additional creative works, but does it broaden the field of works available to the public?

Despite missing this opportunity in their issues paper, the PC review does seem to be a good starting point. They acknowledge that an "effective IP system also promotes the dissemination of innovation and ideas" and express concern that measures to strengthen rights have sometimes proceeded without "a detailed understanding of their economy-wide and distributional effects."[29] I am awaiting their draft report eagerly.

Excitingly, they will also be reporting into a political environment that seems favourable towards user-focused reform. Australia's new Prime Minister has a history in the communications portfolio, has declared innovation growth to be the primary focus of his first year in office,[30] and has moved responsibility for copyright policy to the Communications and Arts portfolio, which also includes the tech and GLAM sectors, not to mention artists themselves. The first copyright reform coming out of these new arrangements focuses on moves to expand and support users rights and, whether its originators know it or not, the information commons. The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2016, an exposure draft of which was released late last year:[31]

• broadens and simplifies exceptions for Australian schools, libraries and the disability sector;
• provides new protection for the intermediaries that work with users; and
• promises to release a huge swathe of unpublished materials into the public domain - the only new materials we'll see relieved of their copyright burden in Australia until 2026.

So forgive me if I'm feeling optimistic. Whether they know it or not, I think our policy setters are finally beginning to see the importance of the information commons and are incorporating principles of information environmentalism into their decision making. I think that these principles are fundamental to the continued well being of our copyright system and society as a whole. And I think they always have been. They have just been neglected for a while - but hopefully that is beginning to change.

References

[1]. James Boyle, A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?, 47, Duke Law Journal 87-116 (1997) Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol47/iss1/2
[2]. Robert Cunningham, Information Environmentalism: a Governance Framework for Intellectual Property Rights, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Available at http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/information-environmentalism?___website=uk_warehouse. Note that the concepts have also been explored further by Boyle himself and others in works such as James Boyle, The public domain – Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press, 2008; and Yochai Benkler, "Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain", New York University Law Review, 1999, Vol. 74, 354
[3]. Robert Cunningham, "Information Environmentalism: towards a digital ecology – by Robert Cunningham", Elgar Blog, September 16, 2014, available at https://elgarblog.com/2014/09/16/information-environmentalism-towards-a-digital-ecology-by-robert-cunningham/. See the book reviewed at Jay Sanderson, "An information environmental manifesto", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, MAy 2 2015.
[4]. For criticism of the TPP copyright provisions see https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
[5]. For criticism of this plan see Megan Sali, "The bad idea that just got worse: how today's European #copyright plans will damage the Internet", OpenMedia, 9 December 2015. https://openmedia.org/en/bad-idea-just-got-worse-how-todays-european-copyright-plans-will-damage-internet
[6]. The Treaty's final text and its history are available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/.
[7]. United States Trade Representative, TPP Intellectual Property, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Chapter-Summary-Intellectual-Property.pdf
[8]. Kris Erickson, Paul Heald, Fabian Homberg, Martin Kretschmer and Dinusha Mendis, Copyright and the Value of the Public Domain: An empirical assessment, Intellectual Property Office, (2015/44) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415014/Copyright_and_the_value_of_the_public_domain.pdf
[9]. Pollock, Rufus, The Value of the Public Domain, Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2006, http://rufuspollock.org/papers/value_of_public_domain.ippr.pdf
[10]. Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Proceedings of a Symposium, The National Academies Press, 2003, http://www.nap.edu/read/10785
[11]. Uhlir, Paul, Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Governmental Public Domain Information, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Paris, 2004. http://otp.unesco-ci.org/training-resource/open-source/policy-guidelines-development-and-promotion-governmental-public-domain
[12]. Gilbert, Benjamin, The 2015 Intellectual Property and Economic Growth Index: Measuring the Impact of Exceptions and Limitations in Copyright on Growth, Jobs and Prosperity, Lisbon Council 2015, http://www.lisboncouncil.net/publication/publication/122-the-2015-intellectual-property-and-economic-growth-index.html#sthash.Bh4kCsTY.dpuf
[13]. Gilbert, Ibid, pp.3-4
[14]. Gilbert, Ibid, p.4
[15]. Palmedo, Mike, Firm Performance in Countries With & Without Open Copyright Exceptions, Infojustice.org, May 2015, http://infojustice.org/archives/34386
[16]. Palmedo, Ibid
[17]. Quoting Jane Ginsburg, "'Une chose publique'? - The Author's Domain and the Public Domain in Early British, French and US Copyright Law", in P. Torremans (ed.), Copyright Law: A. Handbook of Contemporary Research, Edgar Elgar, 2007, p.133
[18]. Dusollier, Severine, Scoping study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain, World Intellectual Property Organisation, Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) Seventh Session Geneva, May 2 to 6, 2011, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_7/cdip_7_inf_2.pdf, pp3-4
[19]. Ibid, p.70
[20]. The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda, World Intellectual Property Organisation, http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/recommendations.html
[21]. Australian Law Review Committee, Copyright and Digital Economy (ALRC Report 122), 13 February 2014, http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/copyright-report-122
[22]. http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/intellectual-property
[23]. See JB Hockey, Terms of Reference, Intellectual Property Arrangements, 18 August 2015, http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/intellectual-property/terms-of-reference at 2
[24]. Productivity Commission, Intellectual Property Arrangements Issues Paper, October 2015, p.21 available at http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/intellectual-property/issuesl
[25]. Ibid p.6 and p.9
[26]. See ibid pp.7-8
[27]. Birnhack, Michael, "More or Better? Shaping the Public Domain", in The Public Domain of Information, P. Bernt Hugenholtz & Lucie Guibault, eds., Kluwer Law International, 2005. p60 Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=677301
[28]. Séverine Dusollier, Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain, World Intellectual Property Organisation, 2011 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_7/cdip_7_inf_2.pdf.
[29]. Ibid p.8 and p.13
[30]. See http://www.innovation.gov.au/
[31]. See exposure draft at https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/updating-australias-copyright-laws. More detailed discussion of the amendments is available at Jessica Coates, "Australian Copyright Reform off to a Good Start for 2016", Australian Digital Alliance, 21 January 2016 http://digital.org.au/content/australian-copyright-reform-good-start-2016